Pope Benedict XVI waves to the crowd during one of his weekly general audiences in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican in 2007. RNS photo by Gregory A. Shemitz

(RNS) When Benedict XVI stunned Catholics by announcing that he would become the first pope in six centuries to resign, it immediately raised concerns — which were dismissed just as quickly — that an ex-pope around could undermine the legitimacy of the new pontiff.

Now, nearly two years later, those fears are emerging again, fueled by the growing discontent of conservative Catholics with Benedict’s successor, Pope Francis, and by Benedict’s presence, if not quite as a player, in church debates Francis has sparked.

“Benedict is hanging back for now, but there’s no doubt that he could easily become a figurehead for traditionalists harkening back to the good old days,” Notre Dame New Testament professor Candida Moss and Joel Baden, Old Testament professor at Yale Divinity School, warned in a Daily Beast column earlier this month.

Hubert Wolf, a church historian at the University of Münster, echoed those thoughts in comments reported by a leading German newspaper last week, when he said there were worries that “around Francis and Benedict XVI, two competing power centers could come into being in the (Roman) Curia, with pope and anti-pope at the top of each.”

What’s fueling these fears? They seem outlandish, almost medieval. But there are at least four factors at work:

1. “There is another pope still living!”

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, a Catholic who has become something of a spokesman for conservatives, made that point in a widely circulated column warning that Francis could provoke a schism on the right.

His statement seems both obvious and perilous: If there’s “another pope,” that means there is a potential rival to the throne.

But the “two living popes” meme isn’t actually true, even though it keeps getting repeated.

Retired Pope Benedict XVI greets Pope Francis at the conclusion of a consistory at which Pope Francis created 19 new cardinals in St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican Feb. 22. Pope Benedict’s presence at the ceremony marked the first time he had joined Pope Francis for a public liturgy. Photo by Paul Haring, courtesy of Catholic News Service

“There is only one pope and his name is Francis, whether people like him and the direction he is steering Roman Catholicism or not,” wrote Christopher Bellitto, a church historian at Kean University, in a column for Reuters.

“There is not more than one president or prime minister because predecessors are still alive,” Bellitto wrote. “A person holds the office of president, prime minister, or pope. When that person no longer holds that office, then that person is no longer president, prime minister, or pope.”

2. Conspiracy theories won’t die

Good luck telling that to some Catholics and conspiracy-lovers, who have propounded a number of theories they say undermine Francis’ claims to the papacy.

3. If he walks like a pope …

Despite his protests, Benedict hasn’t exactly helped the situation by keeping his papal name, continuing to wear the distinctive white papal cassock and taking the title — which he created for himself — of “pope emeritus.” Some church experts say he could have instead gone back to a black cassock and his baptismal name, Joseph Ratzinger, and used the title “bishop emeritus of Rome” or simply Cardinal Ratzinger.

“Juridically there is only one pope. A ‘pope emeritus’ cannot exist,” Manuel Jesus Arroba, a professor of canon law at the Pontifical Lateran University, warned in the days after Benedict announced the innovation.

The debates about the legitimacy of the title and papal perks have shown no sign of abating, and that feeds the conspiracy frenzy, which in turn sparks more debates about the wisdom of Benedict’s post-retirement choices.

4. And talks like a pope …

When Benedict retired, he said he would remain “hidden to the world,” living in seclusion in a monastery inside the Vatican walls. But Francis has encouraged Benedict to come out once in a while, and the former pope has not only taken part in some public events but also made his views known in letters and other communications.

No surprise, not all of his views seem to be in sync with those of Francis, which raises alarms among some, and hopes among others.

The latest example was when an edited volume of Benedict’s theological writings was published and it turned out he had deleted a key part of a 1972 essay in which he advocated a way for divorced and remarried Catholics to take Communion — a proposal that Francis has put on the table, to the intense displeasure of many conservatives.

In the end, it seems far-fetched to think Benedict would become an actual anti-pope or foment a real schism.

For one thing, at 87, he is too frail to take any active role in church governance. Moreover, nothing in his past record or his post-retirement statements gives any hint that he would even contemplate such a divisive step.

The problem is, it’s really not about Benedict; it’s about his followers. Their passion is likely to outlast the ex-pope himself.

About the author

David Gibson

David Gibson is a national reporter for RNS and an award-winning religion journalist, author and filmmaker. He has written several books on Catholic topics. His latest book is on biblical artifacts: "Finding Jesus: Faith. Fact. Forgery," which was also the basis of a popular CNN series.

94 Comments

The whole notion is absurd. For those on the left, they could also say that since the death of Paul VI, there has been no legitimate pope, since JPII and BXVII were not living in the Spirit of Vatican II; the See has finally been filled.

He’s an imperfect man, just as the apostles in the Bible were. The big difference between him and the apostles is that the apostles taught the truth about God and his son, Jesus, and about God’s kingdom or heavenly government, who composes it and what that government will soon accomplish for mankind.

God’s kingdom will put an end to all wicked ones so only the meek ones will live forever on earth (Psalm 37:10,11; Matthew 5:5).

It will rule with love, righteousness and justice (Isaiah 11:1-9).

It will put an end to sin and imperfection, old age, sickness and disease, even death (Revelation 21.3-4).

Yet this pope never shares such great truths with the masses, as the apostles in the Bible did, even when faced with persecution and imprisonment! (Acts 5:27-32).

He appeals to worldly rulers for peace, when Jesus provided the model prayer for us, asking that God’s kingdom come and that his will be done in heaven as well as on earth, or God’s kingdom officially exercising its rule over mankind on earth (Matthew 6:9-13).

He lacks greatly as a worshiper of God or as a follower of his son, Jesus.

If a cracker can become Jesus, why can’t a pope become ’emeritus’?
All you need to do is invent a fancy incantation and make it doctrine. Pope Benedict has already done so – it is what the church always has done for 2000 years.

Whenever something is not possible, the Pope just claims that it is possible ANYWAY.

The true anxiety is that Francis will attempt to exploit Benedict as a prop and extort from him a public blessing for whatever schemes the Bergoglio / Kaspar crew are hatching. Benedict’s family needs to extract him from the Vatican and take him back to Bavaria.

They’re just shuffling the deck chairs on the sinking ship known as the Catholic church. It will either fade into history or be so changed as to be unrecognizable, as the religion changes yet again to try to catch up to human morals and norms.

on the consequences of his allegations, after that. So the chronological order is obscured in your article.

It would be good to note also, that Ivereigh is the ex-secretary to Cardinal Cormac, and is not a conservative or traditionalist conspiracy theorist. He merely reported, ostensibly, what his sources among the clergy told him.

Neither is my blog article a conspiracy theory. I just spell out the significance of what he alleges to be the narrative of events.

Karen, I think your expectations are right on the mark. It has been interesting over my long lifetime to watch the major Christian sects change with the times, or rather always at least slightly behind the times, pretty much like you say. It’s clear that mankind creates religions, and then modifies them when they don’t suit.

Yes, the Catholic Church has already struck the symbolic iceberg; it’s only a matter of time before she sinks completely, and at the hands of God himself (Revelation 17:1-18), whom she “claims” to represent, along with the rest of false religion.

We shall have to see, with our own eyes, who all the false religions are when they go down at the hands of God, whose name is Jehovah (Psalm 83:18), through the political systems that have been her paramour for centuries!! (Revelation 17:1-18). The world empire of false religion (Babylon the Great) is even referred to as a harlot!

Revelation 18:24 brings out that in her was found the blood of prophets and holy ones and those who have been slaughtered on earth.

False religion has been involved in politics and warfare for ages, when Jesus, his disciples, apostles and first-century Christians had not been involved at all, even if it meant their lives!

True Christianity is involved in preaching the “good news of God’s kingdom” instead on a worldwide basis before the end comes of this wicked era (Matthew 24:14).

No one in my faith gets involved in politics and/or war; some have even been arrested and are serving long sentences for refusing to kill their fellowman in war (conscientious objectors) by their respective governments (Korea and Russia) or for preaching the good news of God’s kingdom.

I will continue to maintain my neutrality concerning politics and war; and instead promote, support and preach about God’s kingdom as the ONLY hope for mankind until the end!

Actually John began changing the rules for political reasons around a half century after the death of Christ. Jesus was probably an observant Jew who kept kosher. John was in Turkey at the time and decided that the best way to recruit gentiles was to make it easier. First off, he eliminated the major ouch of an adult circumcision. Then he permitted Christians to eat what they like.

Again, as to the hellfire doctrine, after Adam and Eve sinned against Jehovah God, he had to pronounce judgment against them and told them they would die. But where would they go after death?

Genesis 3-19 provides the answer:

“… For dust you are, and to dust you will return.” So, were Adam and Eve subjected to fiery torment forever, by a loving and just God, their Creator, because of their disobedience?

NO, they went into the ground or grave, never to live again. Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 says that both animals and human have the same outcome, that both came out of the dust and both will return to the dust.

The psalmist shows how just and loving God is:

“As a father shows mercy to his sons, Jehovah has shown mercy to those who fear him. For he well knows how we are formed, knowing that we are dust.”
(Psalms 103:14)

Thus, in spite of our daily sins and shortcomings, he is still merciful towards us, if we are repentant. It also confirms that it would go against God’s perfect love and justice to forever torment his creation, whether wicked or not, who are dead.

Ecclesiastes 9:5,10 says that the dead know nothing at all, and all go to the grave as well.

Psalm 130:3, 4 says: “If errors were what you watch, oh Jah, O Jehovah, who could stand? For there is true forgiveness with you in order that you may be feared.” We can definitely see how loving, merciful and just God really is!

I think the Latin Rite of the church should consider breaking into branches like the Jewish faith: Orthodox, Conservative and Reform. The church allowed the Eastern Rite communities (uniate churches) to keep their own canonical discipline, bishops, churches and retain their own liturgy in order to prevent Eastern Catholics from joining the Orthodox Churches. Why not have an Orthodox and Reform branch in the Latin Rite church? The Holy See is trying hard to rehabilitate members of the Society of St. Pius X and has allowed traditionalist priests such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter to have their own seminaries and churches. I think it makes sense to create a large Traditionalist/Orthodox umbrella group within the Latin Rite. That way the progressive side of the church (myself included) could move foreword with much needed reforms such as women deacons, married priests and new liturgical translations.

The church allowed the Eastern Rite communities (uniate churches) to keep their own canonical discipline, bishops, churches and retain their own liturgy in order to prevent Eastern Catholics from joining the Orthodox Churches.

No, the Church re-incorporated schismatic bodies. And there is not any distinction in doctrinal and moral teachings between the Latin-rite and the Eastern-rites.

The Holy See is trying hard to rehabilitate members of the Society of St. Pius X

No, that is not something in which Francis takes an interest

and has allowed traditionalist priests such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter to have their own seminaries and churches.

There are masses of religious orders, sister, who have their own houses of formation. The particular mission of that one is the preservation of the traditional rite as manifested in the 1962 missal. A multiplicity of rites in the western Church is not a novelty. The Ambrosian, Mozarabic, and Dominican rites have never been suppressed. They are just not widely used.

Morals and ethics are technologies which emerge and help us to survive and thrive within a social and physical environment. Ancient peoples worshiped the sun and physical environment b/c they were so dependent on agricultural cycles. Christianity worships mass consensus and collective emotional experience, which can help maintain complex societies and foster economic growth. The morality of a nomadic people is different from the morality of an agrarian people which is different from a capitalist, urban people. We adopt beliefs which help us survive in a wider world which we have little control over.

“the former pope has not only taken part in some public events but also made his views known in letters and other communications”

He has only taken part in public events he was invited to by Pope Francis. What views has he made in letters and other communications? I did not see any source cited. He has stayed hidden in prayer and writing as he said he would. Although that is unfortunate to some of us, he certainly has done as he stated. Trying to use the media and internet to cause conflict in the Church is not only disgusting, it’s sinful. This is supposed to be a religious site, isn’t it?

Never mind what Christ wants, huh? There are plenty of protestant churches that accept what is against God’s Word. Have you checked one that will suit you? There are many of us that take the Word seriously and don’t want the Church splintered in further.

My faith is the One True Faith (TM). You’re a false prophet. You’re going to burn in hell for ever and ever.

NOOOOOO! MINE is the One True Faith (super-duper TM). YOU’RE THE FALSE ONE!!!! You and call of your fellow travelers will burn in hell forever and ever.

“Such False Religions will pay in burning hellfire. The Pope speaks not from above but from below.” Revenge fantasies abound. And who, WHO is God’s BFFF?

And thus has christianity been for nearly the whole of its existence, write form the Book of Acts down to the present day. Meanwhile, those of us who ascribe to no faith other than “Be the best, kindest person you can!” look on with disbelief. We don’t need this kind of god in our lives.

Those who actually cannot believe that a loving god can watch people burn in hell for eternity for HIS mistakes still go on defending the rest, pleading for sanity, or at least sanctity, of a sort.

I am always amused by people who think are too thick to realize that “Biblical standards of morality” are things actually considered atrocious and repugnant to modern people. You want a modern example of them in action, just follow the news about Islamic State.

Karla, Fran, both of you represent the most unpleasant, brain-dead, useless, ridiculous examples of Christian sectarianism out there. I can think of no better people to illustrate why people should avoid Christianity in general than the fact that if creates opportunities to associate with the likes of either of you.

Frankly if heaven is reserved for people like either of you two, it would be a horrifically unpleasant place to spend an eternity. I could think of no better endorsement for eternal damnation than to say it would be without the presence of such shrill boosters for the Lawd.

ROMAN CATHOLIC AS IT IS NOW IS ONE BIG HOUSE OF HORROR,THE APOSTATE CHURCH THAT’LL SOON PLAY A PROMINENT ROLE IN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE ANTICHRIST THOSE AT THE TOP KNOW EXACTLY THE GAME THEY ARE PLAYING I ONLY PITY THE BLIND AND GULLIBLE FOLLOWERS WHO’LL SHARE IN THE SAME FATE AS WELL.

The truth is for anyone to see, only One has said it… Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me. Listen and worship the only true God and Creator!

I just read this list of comments. Is this some article by “The Onion”? Anti-christ? Predicting eternal hellfire for each other? A cracker is pope? Can’t spell = stupid? Irresponsible, immature, brain dead, useless, house of horror, gullible….. Listen to yourselves! Let’s just quietly put our computers down and take a deep breath. And I’ll stop reading comments.

people should be careful the way they refer to God; mind you, God is an ever present Spirit that is not limited by anything, rather all the forces of nature, at His command; unite themselves for His will to be done. God is to be loved, for He first loved us by pouring on us the gift of breathe. please, let us reverence His Holy Name; than the other-way-round

There is no place of burning torment forever, Gomer; just the common grave where mankind has gone to since Adam and Eve died and went to the grave (Genesis. 3:19).

Some man-made traditions and doctrines (such as hellfire) are so much more judgmental than the only true God is, who is very merciful, compassionate and just concerning his creation, humans, even after they die (they are sleeping in death; Ecclesiastes 9:5,10).

I will always defend the only true God against such defamation of his personality (eternal torment) and loving purposes for mankind.

Ben Gary- Read the Case for Christ by Lee Strobel and Psalm 22:16-18 also
Isaiah 53:3-7 which are very specific about Jesus Christ. Bible can be trusted
cause of prophecy accuracy. Jesus among other gods by Ravi Zacharias is
a good book to read as well. Jesus/God are very,very real! God bless.

Here’s a great excerpt:
—-
The implication in this question is that if there is no transcendent, ultimate, externally imposed meaning that there can be no meaning. That’s a bit of an equivocation fallacy – conflating “meaning” and “transcendent meaning” and then spinning it into “atheistic meaninglessness”.

I have no crisis of meaning. A secular worldview doesn’t result in meaninglessness. My life has whatever meaning I attribute to it, and this would be true whether a god existed or not. Value is the result of desire and while he’d like to dismiss our “selfish interests, pleasures, or tastes” as negatives, that’s not the case. Our selfish interests can result in benefit or harm, all with respect to the things we value. He dismisses the very foundations of meaning in order to claim there is no meaning… that doesn’t sound like the “honest conversation” I’m looking for.

The broader, implied argument is that one should believe in a god because it’ll prevent you from feeling as though your life has no meaning. This is not an argument for the existence of a god; it’s an argument for belief which has no dependency on the object of that belief being true. It’s like arguing that one should believe that they’re holding a winning lottery ticket if it makes them happy.

The problem, of course, is that our beliefs inform our actions and our actions have consequences for ourselves and others. The person who sincerely believes that they hold a winning lottery ticket may well take actions that prove devastating when they discover they actually don’t have a winning ticket.
—-

Ben Gary-Read Romans 1:18-32. Bible prophecy is not vague but specific
and for you to say that this world formed out of nothing then became a
whole universe of design is absurd and it takes more faith to believe in
that the universe is by chance than to believe in God. Many people don’t
want Jesus/God to be real because they don’t want to be told how to live.

Karla, present what you think is a specific prophecy from the bible. Specific. With modern dates and major events, and I mean specific. Not a chapter reference, but the words quoted here plus a statement of what you think the prophecy says and when it was to happen.

For it to be a specific prophecy that I would accept, it would need to have recent, verifiable dates and well known events. Anything else should be rejected (and laughed at).

Ben Gary-I gave specific prophecy that came true in Psalm 22:16-18
and also Isaiah 53:3-7. There are also many things to come like the
Rapture,the rebuilding of the Temple,rise of the antichrist and the
false prophet,new world order/one world government/7 year peace
treaty that will be broken by the antichrist and the false prophet after
3 and 1/2 years go by…also Ezekiel 38/39 predicts the coming war
of Gog and Magog. Revelation says there will be two witnesses that
will preach also there will be 144,000 Jewish male virgins that are
sealed to preach the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ during the
great tribulation where no man can buy or sell without the mark of
the beast. Those are coming in the future so be ready. God bless.

Ben Gary-After the Rapture happens and the 7 year peace treaty is signed
and then the antichrist rises to power along with the false prophet then the
Ezekiel 38/39 prophecy of Gog/Magog happens along with other prophecy
coming true the people will know they were wrong and the Bible was right!
The prophecy I gave you in Psalm 22:16-18 and also Isaiah 53:3-7 both
are very specific about Jesus/came true with 100% accuracy as will all of
the prophecy that will happen in the future. Do some more research about
the Bible prophecy coming true because the Bible is the Truth. God bless.

Ben Gary-I did some research on Tyre and verse 12 says they which refers
to the nations so the prophecy was fulfilled/came true. Many people today
want to twist things/change words/take out parts of Bible verses. God bless.

No, Tyre still exists. And read below instead of dodging what I’ve really asked you. You’ve been caught dodging, and you know what that means. Answer with the specific dates in the predictions or I will consider your (baseless) claims to have been withdrawn.

Again, all your posts are hereby rejected, Karla.Note that I asked you for predictions with SPECIFIC DATES. You presented none.

Do try again.

And then we’ll get into the hundreds of prophecies in the bible that are just plain WRONG!

Satan is still working in the highest levels of the Church (“by their fruits ye shall know them”), but the Holy Ghost assures us that the Church will remain triumphant. The devil must despise even the use of the Latin language since it is the language of God’s Holy Roman Catholic Church and can be viewed as a sacred language proclaiming the truth.

I fully expect that within about one generation of time, the Tridentine Latin Mass, the true Mass. will be the main way to celebrate this Holy Sacrifice.

Ok. Sufficient (at least psychological) reference to the public that Benedict is still a (ex) pope. Forgotten is there are also so many references that Francis is NOT behaving like a Pontiff..

– Not wearing the vestments upon presentation after election
– Not living in the papal palace, but regarding St. Peter as a Bischopric Palace, where he doesn’t want to live.
– Not presenting the pallium himself to Archbishops
– Being visited by the Queen of England not in black
– Never referring to the title Pontiff but solely Bishop of Rome.
I am sure many more can be thought of.

Why is the question never asked that Benedict en JPII were Opus Dei popes, having created the majority of cardinals from that back ground. Already JPII talked about disbanding the Jesuits. Why would these Opus Dei cardinals elect as (proxy?) Pope a Jesuit? There is either two possibilities. Either because they were desperate or because it functions in some sort of plan to have the Jesuits take the blows when they come.

It seems to me obvious that all this is done with the general public in mind. They just make too much effort to keep Benedict at the forefront of consciousness. There has been another Benedict take the Papal office three times in a row… If things get really tough and something happens to Francis and there is no opportunity (war?) to elect another one? Then there still will be something of a pope in the back ground.. For Gods sake. Even the papal secretary still serves both… And why should Pontiff and Succession of St. Peter be the same office? It isn’t. It took hundreds of years before the bishop of Rome became Pontifex Maximus… Which titles DID Benedict resign? All of them? or only Bishop of Rome?

Can you imagine, Obama resigning, but keeping the presidential ring, keep living in the attic of the white house, keep using the Presidential vehicles and airplanes and keeping the Secretary of State as his personal secretary also and on special formal occasions is explicitly invited to attend preferably in the same matching suit as the new president. Everybody would think that’s daft.
.